Recently the discourse in our corner of the internet has been consumed with POSIWID. This acronym, which stands for ‘The Purpose of a System Is What It Does’, comes to us from the world of engineering. In short, the idea is that regardless of the intent of the designers, a system is defined by its output. As an example, the Constitution may have been intended by its designers to insure against tyranny, but this cannot be considered its purpose. If it were its purpose, we would live in a very different world. If you want a more fleshed-out version of this argument, I suggest reading the essays by
Not pertinent to your overall point (unless it is) but Alex Jones shouldn't have power. He tortured parents of dead kids with his cruel false flag conspiracy theories. What kind of person does this? What kind of people listen to such a person?
The purpose that should be viewed askance, I’m assuming, is pure profit.
What if a commentator is on-point and talented, is not harmful to the cause, but is not very effective at nudging the discourse yet is getting rich off of it? Should they be viewed askance as well? I kind of think it’s a mixed bag because maybe the hypothetical commentator just hasn’t realized they need to change tactics. Or maybe they like their position of ineffective but rich talker. That’s their fruit.
Excellent insight. Thank you.
very insightful!
Not pertinent to your overall point (unless it is) but Alex Jones shouldn't have power. He tortured parents of dead kids with his cruel false flag conspiracy theories. What kind of person does this? What kind of people listen to such a person?
The purpose that should be viewed askance, I’m assuming, is pure profit.
What if a commentator is on-point and talented, is not harmful to the cause, but is not very effective at nudging the discourse yet is getting rich off of it? Should they be viewed askance as well? I kind of think it’s a mixed bag because maybe the hypothetical commentator just hasn’t realized they need to change tactics. Or maybe they like their position of ineffective but rich talker. That’s their fruit.